Proposed Rule Changes that affect Amateur status?

[IPEsq]

I don’t think a dollar amount really solves it. What about the celebrity rider? They may need their social media for their professional life. They might make money off of it or receive free products. If they put anything on their showing that they are a horse person, they also violate the rule. They are professional celebrities not professional horse trainers.

It just seems to have nothing really to do with horse showing if your only “professional” activities are on social media and not also out in the barn.

I also like finding reviews on products out there when I’m shopping for some $ horse purchase. I don’t care if a blogger got product to review for free. I do want to know if they are full on sponsored by the brand vs just getting sent some stuff to do a review.

Anyway, I think this has even less to do with being a professional for purposes of horse shows than teaching beginner lessons.

I will also point out that I looked into the trainer certification criteria at one point (I am a professional but currently towards the end of sitting out a year to try to get my ammy card back). You have to be a full time professional for a certain amount of time to apply for trainer certification. Doesn’t matter if you could pass the tests or whatever skill or knowledge you have and be teaching part time. It just means that I (for example) can’t make a living just doing horses—I just like to help when I can—and I have another career. So why then is the part time low level teacher who can’t be USHJA certified still a pro in all cases?

So, does the rule intend to stop under the table sponsorships? Probably. But just because someone is talented at posting Instagram stories doesn’t mean they have some competitive advantage in the ring over other amateurs.

[ladyj79]

@AAHunterGal

But for the local person who has maybe 657 followers and gets free treats from her friend who is starting a homemade treat company in exchange for a few shout outs on social media - now she is a professional? That just makes no sense to me at all

No, she’s not, unless she is getting–i think the dollar amount is like 250? 300 dollars worth of treats. There is a dollar amount, and it is somewhere around that.

[MHM]

Just an update.

This rule change proposal has come up a couple of times so far in the different discussions at the USHJA annual meeting. It does not seem to be getting much support, based on both the concept of it and the difficulty with enforcement.

A different rule change proposal in the works would specifically allow social media influencers to remain amateurs, and also bump up the annual limit on the value of gifts from $300 to $1,000. That one seems to be gaining a little more support, although it’s still early in the process.

[Atlas_Shrugged]

Besides the " bookkeeping rule" there is also an “accounting rule”: Ammy buys horse and receives Bill of Sale allowing him or her to show as Ammy OWNER - it includes small “payments” with a balloon payment due at a later date, which never gets paid because the horse gets returned to the original “Owner” when the deal “falls through”

[MHM]

There was also a brief mention today of the fact that lunging is considered a violation of the amateur rule.

Apparently since the amateur rule applies across all disciplines, it has to include lunging for things like dressage horses, where it is often used for actual training purposes. Not just to give the horse a chance to buck for 10 minutes or whatever.

[touchstone]

The backlash to this rule proposal makes me wonder if USEF should also be rethinking the sponsorship rule. This seems like mostly a clarification of that existing rule, focusing on social media as a specific type of the broader category of product promotions that are already banned.

I don’t personally have strong views about this aspect of the amateur rule either way. But if people really hate the idea of banning marketing for free products, why would they only care about it in some media and not others?

[mouseinlux]

I don’t understand why you guys are sticking to this system still.
Here we have license classes. The first two licenses you get by doing exams. My daughter will do her first this year. It will allow her to jump up to 105cm. The next will allow you to jump up to 115cm. Once you have those exams your license changes with placements in your highest jumping category… I have amateur friends who are amazing riders but aren’t pro. They win our national championship a lot. They can’t ride against me because they’re license is too heigh.
At the moment you have so many people who class as pro riders because they do something simple for money so they have to ride against actual pros while you have people who are rocking it not riding against pros because they are very careful of their amateur status. It’s obviously a broken system so why not phase it out and bring something in that works?

[crackerjack]

What happens in the case of showing a green horse that is competing at a lower level as it is not yet ready to compete at the higher levels? Are your friends not allowed to show it?

[trubandloki]

@mouseinlux

They can’t ride against me because they’re license is too heigh.

Can you explain this more?
If their license is too high does that restrict them to higher divisions or do you have lower divisions for people with that license?

[ladyj79]

Ok but hilariously a horse can regain its green status

[crackerjack]

I’m not in the US so I don’t understand the whole green debacle- to me it just seems a money making thing. But what I’m asking is how would someone be able to ride a horse in a show that cannot do the 1.30s if the rider is limited to only riding 1.30s and up. Would someone else have to ride them? I’m not saying the licensing is a bad idea- just curious how one rider would be able to ride different horses at different stages of training.

[Linny]

I do think that with the rise of “influencers” etc that the sponsorship clause needs looking at.

There is a slippery slope. I work at a tack store. When a brand is running a program that offers sales staff $ for selling certain things, you better believe that every customer gets shown those products. I’m not hard selling but I am making sure the customer knows about it. Am I now an influencer? A major line used to offer points when we sold their items and points converted to products for salespeople. Do the boots and coat I earned in the program make me a pro?

[dags]

@mouseinlux

I don’t understand why you guys are sticking to this system still.

Basically, because we don’t have a choice. Our NGB is not showing any interest in amending this policy.

But something I realized the other day: The USEF amateur rules are cross discipline. They apply as written to all USEF disciplines, yet somehow Eventing & Dressage don’t seem to have this eternal amateur v. pro dilemma. Ergo, the problem seems to be in how we’ve structured our classes (which basically boils down to pro. vs. non-pro vs. minors), and that is actually something we could examine & change. And that would probably be more effective in producing a workable solution than screaming at an NGB that’s repeatedly shown its never gonna listen.

[mouseinlux]

There are sometimes lower heights that they can jump in the same class as me. Each show will publish which license numbers (so if you have the license 6 you can only jump up to 105cm, if you have a 2 you can only jump that height if the show says you can, normally the lowest for them is 115cm) there are you g horse classes that will allow the riders with bigger licenses to ride young horses at lower heights.

[Lucassb]

@dags

Basically, because we don’t have a choice. Our NGB is not showing any interest in amending this policy.

But something I realized the other day: The USEF amateur rules are cross discipline. They apply as written to all USEF disciplines, yet somehow Eventing & Dressage don’t seem to have this eternal amateur v. pro dilemma. Ergo, the problem seems to be in how we’ve structured our classes (which basically boils down to pro. vs. non-pro vs. minors), and that is actually something we could examine & change. And that would probably be more effective in producing a workable solution than screaming at an NGB that’s repeatedly shown its never gonna listen.

There are amateur and open classes at dressage shows as well. But since shows are generally Sat/Sun (not Tue-Sun) and there is really no money to be won, there is not much contention about it. And the “class” runs with amateurs, juniors and open riders showing together - it’s just the placings that are separated. I showed last weekend and in my third level class, there were maybe a dozen entries, and I think 5 were amateurs… the judge scores all the rides as they see them, and then the ribbons are handed out for each group by division.

[dags]

@Lucassb

the “class” runs with amateurs, juniors and open riders showing together - it’s just the placings that are separated

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of just awarding another set of ribbons. Lord knows we don’t need to add anymore classes.
Like, the new proposed amateur split that creates a 3rd standalone division… couldn’t we just run all the amateurs, pin all the amateurs, and then award a (perhaps smaller) set of placings per age group? That way you get to go head to head with everyone, which would be a very impressive win, but also get placed against your peers. Perhaps a Champion & Reserve Amateur, and also High Point & Reserve High Point 18-25, 26-45, 46+. You could actually go home with two titles and not put any more wear on your horse or stress on an already over-packed schedule.

But that’s just me, who often ponders why we split an entire division devoted to judging the horse by age of rider

[IPEsq]

But in dressage what really matters is your numerical score. In the hunters, we award points based on ribbons and the rating of the show and the number of people in the division. So, the ribbon is what matters to anyone looking to qualify for something —year end awards, indoors. You can qualify for dressage championships based off of a score that maybe didn’t even get you a ribbon depending on the competition and other scores at that show.

So if you say everyone shows in the 3’6 performance hunters and then you place two cards - pro and non pro, it is still going to matter to people whether they are classified as pro or non pro because their ribbon matters.

Based on some numbers (like shows that could fill 3 sections of AOs), it could be a lot more workable to run separate divisions than one giant division. In dressage you get a ride time. In the hunters, the logistics and balancing different rings by trainers are more tenuous. You can estimate when a division will run. If that division is going to be running for 4 hours and you’ve got to sign up with the in gate, that can be more complicated than coordinating with a division that would only take 1 hour to get through.

Also think about the schedule for horse shows that need 5-6 days to run. Part of the appeal of being an amateur if you are not a full time horse professional is that maybe your classes run on a weekend so you can stay productive in your job. Where do you run the combined divisions if they’d normally take separate days or at a minimum multiple rings on the same day to get through? You could condense the schedule but USEF requires that national and premier rated shows go on for all these days. What would they put on Wednesday now?

And then of course waiting around for the splits to happen after the fact and then do the jogs!

How would you divide up the under saddle for this mega-division?

[touchstone]

Every time we have one of these conversations, it becomes clear how people have different ideas about what the amateur rule is “for.” And the suggestions about how to change the rule really flow from these various preferences.

Right now, the amateur rule is designed to separate people who are paid to ride and teach from those who are not.

Some people on this thread think it should sort out people who work full time jobs outside the horse industry from those who don’t. Or who have a lot of money to spend on horses and training from those who don’t. Or who have an extensive competitive record from people who are less experienced.

I’m not sure an amateur designation can solve all of these problems at once–or should.

But, to me, the current rules feel less confusing if I think about them through the lens of “paid to teach or ride.” Most of them are directly addressing various situations of that sort.

Sponsorship/social media is somewhat complicated because it’s a little hard to untangle whether the person is being compensated for their riding or something else, like their marketing skill or celebrity. But it’s easy to imagine a situation where a sponsorship could be cover for what is otherwise a straightforward pay-to-ride-or-teach scheme. In the same way that people used to be paid for “bookkeeping” while spending all day riding and teaching, you could imagine someone being paid for their “social media marketing” while effectively working as a professional. But, as a practical matter, I think most such situations would get caught up by other parts of the amateur rule.

[MHM]

Based on the Zoom meeting yesterday by the USHJA amateur task force, it sounds like they might drop these new proposed rule changes and start over with a major overhaul of the whole amateur rule.

One of the challenges is that the amateur rule has to apply across the board to all the different divisions, so it’s a big undertaking. It also needs to work for all shows, not just the huge circuits with tons of entries in the division. So that’s another complicating factor.

[dags]

But USHJA has no actual power to change the rule, right? That’s USEF jurisdiction, and I don’t see them showing any desire to scrap & re-work it.